encompass a philosophical account of the
ethical and political 'choices'

encompass a philosophical account of the
ethical and political 'choices'

that are affected by each type of machine.
No scientific or philosophic

that are affected by each type of machine.
No scientific or philosophic

-

approach can escape being a part of
one or the other type of machines.

+

approach can escape being a part of
one or the other type of machines. {{dubious}}

-

+

-

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

== References ==

== References ==

Line 665:

Line 663:

Vol 1: Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy</i>,

Vol 1: Nanometric Functions of Bioenergy</i>,

Akronos Publishing, Toronto, Canada

Akronos Publishing, Toronto, Canada

+

+

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Revision
as of 03:08, 21 June 2005216.254.162.101

← Older edit

Revision
as of 03:08, 21 June 2005Evil Monkey
Reverted edits by 216.254.162.101 to last version by Evil MonkeyNewer edit →

Line 8:

Line 8:

{{OriginalResearch}}

{{OriginalResearch}}

-

Article deleted
by its sole author. No need to vote any
further.

+

'''Aetherometry'''
is a controversial concept developed by [[Paulo Correa|Dr. Paulo N. Correa]] and [[Alexandra
Correa|Alexandra N. Correa]], who advocate it as ''experimental and analytical
work that ''replicates, revises and continues'' the scientific contributions
of [[Nikola Tesla|N. Tesla]],

[[Rene Thom|R.
Thom]] and [[Harold Aspden|H. Aspden]] concerning '''massfree energy'''.
However, this is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]]
concerning [[energy]] applications, and has met with severe criticism and
opposition, those who also note that the credentials of the developers
of the theory are questionable. The concept itself, including "massfree
energy" is a probable [[neologism]], which conflicts with [[quantum mechanics]].
The probable likelihood is that their research does not continue the contributions
of Tesla and similar scientists at all.

+

Revision
as of 21:41, 21 June 2005NatalinasmpfYes, all of this is an extensive fraud, your plans to subvert Wikipedia to gain donations for your "new science" has backfired← Older edit

Revision
as of 22:48, 21 June 2005Dragons flight
rm criticism of PhD, see talk.Newer edit →

Line 9:

Line 9:

{{cleanup}}

{{cleanup}}

-

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]
neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate
it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues''
the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]]
concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this
is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]],
and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that
the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has
shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general
relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]]; they take the title of "[[doctor]]" but such credentials
are probably [[fraud]].

+

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]
neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate
it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues''
the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]]
concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this
is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]],
and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that
the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has
shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general
relativity]]. It is of high probability the Correas are mere [[charlatans]].

Revision
as of 23:00, 21 June 2005GangofOneBooks← Older edit

Revision
as of 23:05, 21 June 2005Natalinasmpfdoesn't exclude them from possible (and most likely) charlatantryNewer edit →

Line 9:

Line 9:

{{cleanup}}

{{cleanup}}

-

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]
neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate
it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues''
the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]]
concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this
is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]],
and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that
the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The has
shown extensive conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general
relativity]].

+

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]]
neologism conceived by [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]], who advocate
it as ''experimental and analytical work that replicates, revises and continues''
the scientific contributions of revered figures such as [[Nikola Tesla]]
concerning '''massfree energy''' and [[energy]] applications. However, this
is generally rejected by the [[scientific community]] as [[pseudoscience]],
and has met with severe criticism and opposition, those who also note that
the credentials of the developers of the theory are questionable. The very concept of Aetherometry has shown extensive
conflict with [[quantum mechanics]] as well as [[general relativity]]. There has been significant attempts by the Correas
to gain followers for what they term as a "new [[scientific discipline":
however, this is most likely [[charlatan|charlatantry]].

Revision
as of 16:21, 24 June 2005Natalinasmpf
NPOV? we have to represent the scientific community, who deserve to be
represented as mainstream science← Older edit

Revision
as of 16:39, 24 June 2005William M. ConnolleyI don't think it true to say that mainstream science opposes
this gumpf - it just ignores it. Kirlian photo, etc, aren't subfields of
science - they are non science.Newer edit →

Line 12:

Line 12:

-

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]]
coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their
alternative scientific theories, which
range over many scientific fields, ( such as [[physics]], [[chemistry]],
[[biophysics]]) and many controversial subfields,
such as orgonomy,

+

'''Aetherometry''' is a [[neologism]]
coined by Dr. [[Paulo Correa]] and [[Alexandra Correa]] to describe their
alternative theories, which range over many scientific fields, ( such as
[[physics]], [[chemistry]], [[biophysics]]) and many controversial fields, such as orgonomy,

Kirlian photography, aether theories,
alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory
of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include
interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted
by conventional science,

Kirlian photography, aether theories,
alternative theory of [[De Broglie]]'s matter waves, Le Sage-type theory
of gravity and the aetherometric cancer project. Inspirations for it include
interpretations of part of [[Nikola Tesla]]'s work that was never accepted
by conventional science,

-

and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm
Reich]] and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are
interpretations of their work, and not necessarily what would be their
views. Other influences include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories,
and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]]. However, this theory has met strong opposition from the [[scientific
community]], who also note that often such
theories lack [[peer review]], and allege such a theory as [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]].

+

and the theories of Dr. [[Wilhelm Reich]]
and [[Gilles Deleuze]]. One should note however, that these are interpretations
of their work, and not necessarily what would be their views. Other influences
include Dr. [[Harold Aspden]]'s physical theories, and Dr.[[Eugene Mallove]].
However, this theory has largely been ignored
as irrelevant by the [[scientific community]]. Often such theories lack [[peer review]] and
may be [[pseudoscience|pseuoscientific]].

Revision
as of 18:02, 24 June 2005Natalinasmpf
wikify← Older edit

Revision
as of 19:32, 24 June 2005William M. ConnolleyNo, its not because its new, its because it isn't peer reviewed
(actually, its because its total twaddle, but sadly wiki NPOV won't let
us say that)Newer edit →

Revision
as of 23:25, 24 June 2005Karada
trimming← Older edit

Revision
as of 23:26, 24 June 2005Karada
pseudoscienceNewer edit →

Line 13:

Line 13:

Aetherometry has largely been ignored
by the [[scientific community]], as no papers on it have succeeded in being
published in peer reviewed journals.

Aetherometry has largely been ignored
by the [[scientific community]], as no papers on it have succeeded in
being published in peer reviewed journals.

-

Proponents of Aetherometry state
that this is because the scientific community is unable to accommodate
the revolutionary new ideas of Aetherometry. Detractors of Aetherometry
state that the reason is that Aetherometry is simply nonsense, or pseudoscience
at best, with no meaningful scientific content.

+

Proponents of Aetherometry state
that this is because the scientific community is unable to accommodate
the revolutionary new ideas of Aetherometry. Detractors of Aetherometry
state that the reason is that Aetherometry is simply nonsense, or [[pseudoscience]] at
best, with no meaningful scientific content.

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Revision
as of 01:41, 25 June 2005Theresa knott
you cant know who has read what so this has to go← Older edit

Revision
as of 02:39, 25 June 2005Theresa knottDo you prefere this?Newer edit →

Line 11:

Line 11:

-

Aetherometry has been ignored by the
[[scientific community]] and no papers on it have appeared in mainstream
peer-reviewed journals. A number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed
publications dedicated to "alternative science".Detractors of aetherometry state that it appears to be
at best an attempt at [[pseudoscience]].

+

Aetherometry has been ignored by the
[[scientific community]] and no papers on it have appeared in mainstream
peer-reviewed journals. A number of papers on it have appeared in peer-reviewed
publications dedicated to "alternative science". Such publications are not treated seriously by mainstream
sciemtists.

Proponents of aetherometry state that
the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is

Proponents of aetherometry state that
the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is

-

heavily politicised, and governed
by an interplay of entrenched interests - both
intellectual and material - and that an
acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest in understanding it on
the part of the mainstream "scientific community" is not likely to take place
is any near future. There is an aspiration regard
it as an alternate "scientific paradigm"
and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid content, which may be integrated into the body of science
in the future.

+

heavily politicised, and governed
by an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash;
both intellectual and material &ndash;
and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest
in understanding it on the part of the mainstream "scientific community"
is not likely to take place is any near future. Some regard it as an alternative "scientific [[paradigm]]", and hope aetherometry may have some new and
valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. This, however, involves a misunderstanding of the
[[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhnian]] notion of a paradigm.

Revision
as of 17:38, 25 June 2005TTLightningRodLinguistics← Older edit

Revision
as of 17:47, 25 June 2005Mel Etitis
copy-edited, added more details of paradigms, rm unattributed quotation
and oddly-placed paragraphs of special pleadingNewer edit →

Line 9:

Line 9:

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free
to edit beyond this point -->

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free
to edit beyond this point -->

-

Proponents of aetherometry state that
the process of "acceptance" by the scientific community is

+

Proponents of aetherometry state that
the process of acceptance by the scientific community is

-

heavily politicised, and governed
by an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash; both intellectual and
material &ndash; and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any
interest in understanding it on the part of the mainstream "scientific community"
is not likely to take place is any
near future. Some regard it as an alternative "scientific [[paradigm]]", and hope aetherometry may have some new and
valid content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future.

+

heavily politicised, and governed by
an interplay of entrenched interests &ndash; both intellectual and material
&ndash; and that an acceptance of aetherometry, or even any interest
in understanding it on the part of the mainstream scientific community, is not likely to take place is the near future. Some regard it as an alternative
scientific [[paradigm]], and hope aetherometry may have some new and valid
content which may be integrated into the body of science in the future. This, however, involves a misunderstanding of
the [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhnian]] notion of a paradigm. Science is defined
in terms of a shared paradigm; whatever lies outside that paradigm (which
is defined in large part as a shared set of techniques, theories, and [[exemplar]]s)
is by definition not science (if it claims to be scientific, then it is
pseudo-science). In other words,
the very notion of an alternative scientific paradigm is self-contradictory.

Revision
as of 05:16, 27 June 2005Natalinasmpf
rv - the people voting can be notified that this is so, but was for the
people not participating in the vote, it has to be otherwise← Older edit

Revision
as of 04:37, 28 June 2005Theresa knott

Newer edit →

Line 68:

Line 68:

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Paulo and Alexandra Correas work] by James DeMeo.

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Paulo and Alexandra Correas work] by James DeMeo.

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]

+

+

[[Category:Protoscience]]

Revision
as of 04:49, 28 June 2005Pgio

← Older edit

Revision
as of 04:52, 28 June 2005Pgio
Oops! Forgot a 'the' and this summary. Ms. Theresa Knott has kindly
changed the category of this article, because I didn't know how.Newer edit →

In Talk:

"Categorising Aetherometry as protoscience seems a very sensible idea
to me. I have done it for you but for future reference all you need to do is type [[category:Protoscience]] somewhere on the page (Usually at either the top or the bottom of the article)" Theresa Knott (ask the rotten), 28 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)

I very narrowly agree with the recategorizing. The process followed by the Correas has some superficial similarty with the scientific method, but only as a farce. And I'm somewhat suspicious abou science nuts, who don't see the large, flashing signs of bad physics, like physical constants of exactly 0.12m or π m/s. Pjacobi, June 28, 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Revision
as of 04:52, 28 June 2005Pgio
Oops! Forgot a 'the' and this summary. Ms. Theresa Knott has kindly changed
the category of this article, because I didn't know how.← Older edit

Revision
as of 07:43, 28 June 2005The AnomeAetherometry is largely ignored by mainstream science.Newer edit →

Line 12:

Line 12:

[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneer and
a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of aetherometry,
and was one of the founding members of the International Society of the
Friends of Aetherometry.

[[Eugene Mallove]], who was a pioneer and
a proponent of alternative energy, was a public supporter of aetherometry,
and was one of the founding members of the International Society of the Friends
of Aetherometry.

-

Because the
existence of massfree energy and the status of aetherometry as a scientific
discipline is largely unrecognized
by mainstream science, Wikipedia categorizes
Aetherometry as a [[protoscience]].

+

Aetherometry
is largely ignored by mainstream
science.

Revision
as of 04:53, 29 June 2005Theresa knott
einstein removed again. Calling it the Reich -Einstein experiment is wrong
when einstein did not publish this experiment← Older edit

Revision
as of 05:04, 29 June 2005Theresa knottMainstream physics no longer recognises the existance of an aetherNewer edit →

Line 6:

Line 6:

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to
edit beyond this point -->

<!-- End of VfD message, feel free to
edit beyond this point -->

-

"'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]]
coined by Paulo and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical
system they developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise
experimental and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (the metrics of
the massfree [[aether]]).

+

"'''Aetherometry'''" is a [[neologism]]
coined by Paulo and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical
system they developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise experimental
and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (the metrics of the massfree
[[aether]]). Massfree energy is not a term used
by mainstream physisists and the existance of an aether is no longer accepted
by mainstream physisists.

And one can always count on another Administrator to come out of nowhere and recategorize:

Revision
as of 01:13, 30 June 2005Helicoid
Added link← Older edit

Revision
as of 01:38, 30 June 2005Genirm Category:ProtoscienceNewer edit →

Revision
as of 01:57, 30 June 2005Genirv this is jnot a protoscienceNewer edit →

Line 28:

Line 28:

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Vol 1 of Experimental Aetherometry] by James DeMeo.

* [http://www.orgonelab.org/correas.htm Criticisms of Vol 1 of Experimental Aetherometry] by James DeMeo.

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]

:*[http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/ACT-01.pdf A rebuttal of James DeMeo's criticisms]

-

-

[[Category:Protoscience]]

Revision
as of 04:34, 30 June 2005Theresa knott

← Older edit

Revision
as of 05:11, 30 June 2005PgioTo Geni: I honestly believe this fits Protoscience perfectly. The
present article probably isn't the best way to judge this new science -- you'd
have to read the primary sources. Thanks.Newer edit →

Line 5:

Line 5:

You are welcome to edit this article, but
please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice,
while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide
to Votes for deletion|Guide to ''Votes for Deletion'']].</div>[[Category:Pages
on votes for deletion]]

You are welcome to edit this article, but
please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice, while
the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the [[Wikipedia:Guide
to Votes for deletion|Guide to ''Votes for Deletion'']].</div>[[Category:Pages
on votes for deletion]]

Revision
as of 20:21, 3 July 2005Theresa knottI really do think we should have both categories. Notice that I didn't replace protoscience with pseudophysics. But it's important that the reader is notified that this isn't physics.Newer edit →

Line 26:

Line 26:

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision
as of 21:28, 3 July 20054.232.6.240
Refer to discussion page.← Older edit

Revision
as of 21:39, 3 July 2005Theresa knott
Actually I did justify the inclusion of this category on the talk page.
Yet you reverted me without explanation. Did you read the talk page?Newer edit →

Line 26:

Line 26:

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision
as of 23:04, 3 July 2005209.183.20.149

← Older edit

Revision
as of 04:43, 4 July 2005Theresa knottExplaining why not publishing is badNewer edit →

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision
as of 13:59, 4 July 2005209.183.20.136
An encyclopedia is not the place for fatuous didacticism.← Older edit

Revision
as of 15:08, 4 July 2005PjacobiCategory:PseudophysicsNewer edit →

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision
as of 19:36, 4 July 2005TTLightningRod
removed as non sequitur (see: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language.)← Older edit

Revision
as of 19:37, 4 July 2005Pjacobi
Reverted edits by TTLightningRod to last version by PjacobiNewer edit →

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Revision
as of 19:38, 4 July 2005TTLightningRod
removed as non sequitur (see: American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language.)← Older edit

Revision
as of 19:39, 4 July 2005Pjacobi
rv, see talkNewer edit →

[[Category:Protoscience]]

[[Category:Protoscience]]

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

Note that the preceding constituted a violation of the 3-Revert Rule by Administrator PJacobi.

Revision
as of 23:02, 5 July 2005Theresa knott Putting the protoscience category back in. I'm personally not sure
if it should be in or out, but as a matter of fairness to the advocates you
should justify the removal on the talk pageNewer edit →

And what exactly was it that Salsb (Freddie Salsbury) wrote in Talk? He wrote:

"I apparently was replying at the same time as Therea Knott was, but my response is the same.The lack of even a single peer-reviewed report of any experiment." Salsb, 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Of course, Freddie had been given plenty of references to peer-reviewed reports of experiments, but he doesn't mean those; what he means - but, poor malicious sod that he appears to be, cannot express in his voluntarily crippled conceptual framework - is that he wants reports that were peer-reviewed in mainstream publications. But you know what? The definition of the category "Protoscience", at least as it was in those heady days of July 2005, says absolutely nothing about mainstream publications! Here is the definition, in full:

In the philosophy of science, the term protoscience is used to describe a new area of scientific endeavor in the process of becoming established. While protoscience is often speculative, it is to be distinguished from pseudoscience by its adherence to the scientific method and standard practices of good science, most notably a willingness to be disproven by new evidence (if and when it appears), or supplanted by a more-predictive theory.

Fits Aetherometry perfectly, no? But we digress... Back to our history. The next event - in light of the fact that the proposal to change the name of the category "Pseudophysics" to "Non-mainstream science" fell on deaf ears - was the actual creation, by one of the "supporters" of Aetherometry, of a new category named "Non-mainstream science". Note how the next sequence reveals that "Pseudophysics", in spite of its pretences, was never really intended to "neutrally" encompass non-mainstream scientific endeavors:

Revision
as of 17:35, 13 July 20054.231.172.243
* Oh, of course, the Connolley member of the tag team club checking in.
Next you can bring in Chris Thomas and Pjacobi. Hell, you can even bring
in Laura← Older edit

Revision
as of 20:16, 13 July 20054.233.122.237
One could hardly qualify you lot as editors - and no matter how often your
little club bleats pseudophysics and stamps its biased POV stamp here - it
simply isn't.← Older edit

Revision
as of 20:19, 13 July 2005Salsbrv to W; undoing anon user's 5th reversion of the dayNewer edit →

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision
as of 20:51, 13 July 20054.231.169.101
Yes. Your little tag team has been very busy← Older edit

Revision
as of 21:04, 13 July 2005Pjacobi
Reverted edits by 4.231.169.101 to last version by SalsbNewer edit →

-

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision
as of 22:29, 13 July 20054.231.171.215
Of course, the tag team pary just wouldn't be complete without Pjacobi? Older edit

Revision
as of 22:53, 13 July 2005PjacobiReverted edits by 4.231.171.215 to last version by PjacobiNewer edit →

-

+

[[Category:Pseudophysics]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

[[Category:Non-mainstream science]]

Revision
as of 13:08, 14 July 200562.178.37.244
Corrected the list of PhD-credentialled scientist reviewers.← Older edit

On July 18th, the category "Non-mainstream Science" was voted to be deleted (actually, the term used was "merged", but the effects were exactly the same). The pretended reason for the "merging" was that the caterory was redundant, since the category "Pseudophysics" had exactly the same purpose (to accommodate non-mainstream scientific theories). One could, of course, wonder why it was not the category "Pseudophysics" that was voted for elimination - i.e. for merging into the much more accurately named "Non-mainstream science", rather than the other way around. Yes, one could indeed wonder, but the answer, given the rest of the history, is pretty clear. And, in keeping with this clarity, note that as soon as "Non-mainstream science" was eliminated, the Aetherometry entry was recategorized from "Non-mainstream science" to - what? the supposedly synonymous category "Pseudophysics" that Linas had supposedly created for it, and that everybody was for a while so intent on putting it into? Not at all. It was recategorized - to "Pseudocience"!! See for yourself:

On the next day, after a bit more "cleanup" in which the list of peer-reviewers of work in Aetherometry was once again removed, the entry was made "protected" against "vandalism" (i.e. was locked against attempts to edit it), with the Pseudoscience categorization firmly in place:

00:41, 19 July 2005 Petaholmes(add
protected tag)

00:11, 19 July 2005 Theresa knott(Oh that was a sneaky one. I bet you though you were clever!
I'm reverting to my previous version. Feel free to complain all you like.)

00:02, 19 July 2005 Theresa knott(vandal protected)

Here, for the record, is the version that was locked:

Aetherometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This
article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality.See How to Edit and Style and How-to for help, or this article's talk page.

This page has been protected from editing to deal with vandalism. Please discuss any proposed changes on the talk page.

"Aetherometry" is a term coined by biophysicist and molecular biologist Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa to denote the experimental and analytical system they claim to have developed, the goal of which is asserted to be the precise experimental and theoretical study of "massfree energy" (or, as they also put it, the study of the "metrics of the massfree aether"). (Note that "massfree energy" is not a term used by mainstream physicists.) Unlike those previous theories of the aether which were ruled out by the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, aetherometry proponents claim that their concept of massfree energy provides a theory of the aether based upon that null result.

Aetherometry claims to provide a different foundation for much of accepted physics, chemistry, and biophysics, and to go beyond them by explaining a number of what its supporters claim are hitherto unexplained anomalies. Among the subjects it addresses are blackbody radiation, microwave cosmic background radiation, Kirlian photography, Tesla coil resonance, electroscopic discharge, anomalous cathode reaction forces, autoelectronic emission, the thermal effects of orgone accumulators, the 1941 Reich-Einstein experiment, and the Orgone motor. It also claims to explain the failures of a number of controversial theories in minor fields of scientific investigation, such as orgonomy, LeSage-type theory of gravity, and models for cold fusion. The main philosophical influences claimed by aetherometry are Friedrich Nietzsche, Camillo Berneri, and Gilles Deleuze while its main scientific influences are claimed to be Nikola Tesla, Louis de Broglie, Wilhelm Reich, Harold Aspden, and René Thom.

In particular, aetherometry appears to be, in part, a continuation of Reich's investigations into orgone energy. Its proponents claim to have experimentally confirmed most of Reich's claimed experimental results, and have proposed theoretical explanations for them [1]. In aetherometry,
Reich's Orgone and DOR energies are regarded as forming a single spectrum
of "ambipolar massfree electric radiation". [2]. In spite of aetherometry's
connections to Reich's work, some aetherometrists are highly critical of
Reich's followers [3].

Eugene Mallove, founder of Infinite Energy
magazine, was a public supporter of aetherometry, and was one of the founding
members of the International Society of Friends of Aetherometry.

Papers, books and DVDs in Aetherometry have been published by Akronos Publishing
(a Canadian publishing house in which Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa are
partners) and in the non-mainstream peer-reviewed science magazine Infinite
Energy, but not in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publications. None
of the papers have been cited in peer-reviewed mainstream scientific publications.

According to aetherometry's supporters, work in aetherometry, including
plasma physics, biophysics and technology-tests, has been independently reviewed
by a number of scientists and medical doctors. The Correas' website provides
a set of references to aetherometry research (linked below), which includes
the names of a number of their supporters and endorsers.

External links

Advocacy:

"Aetherometry, the Science of the Metric of the Aether" http://www.aetherometry.com/

International Society of Friends of Aetherometry (2005). http://aetherometry.com/ISFA_overview.html Retrieved June 25, 2005